If speaking the truth is offensive, let us offend

On July 15, Aruna Papp, author of a recently released report, “Culturally-driven violence against women: A growing problem in Canada’s immigrant communities” published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s study, wrote in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun:

Problematically, most advocates and activists for female victims of abuse shy away from challenging the immigrant communities to examine their own traditions and cultural values in explaining the violence in their homes.

The ideology of multiculturalism, even among the most well-meaning advocates for female equality, tends to preclude any discussion of cultural values and traditions. Such advocates are afraid of being seen as “colonialist” and try to avoid a perceived “racialization” of an entire ethnic community.

Papp writes in the aftermath of the sentencing last month to life imprisonment of Muhammad Parvez and Waqas Parvez, for the murder of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez in Mississauga, Ontario. Aqsa was killed on December 10, 2007 – Human Rights Day incidentally for a sad twist of irony – by her father and brother, who strangled her to death in her bedroom early one morning, after grabbing her from the bus stop where she waited to go to school. Their motive? Aqsa didn’t want to wear a veil, wanted to wear jeans, to have a part-time job, and the freedom to have a social life outside her family.

Papp ventured into dangerous territory and put a name to a problem we more often prefer to leave unnamed. She emphasized the danger of culturally-sanctioned abuse against women, its prevalence in Canada, and its tacit acceptance among many women and men in South Asian immigrant communities. In the light of the tragedy and the injustice of Aqsa’s honour killing, and all the warning signs that preceded it, these trends warrant serious and open examination.

Yet in Canada, we are gripped in fear of offending other cultures and so we carefully tiptoe around confronting the cultural or tribal roots of injustices, like the brutal murder of the teenage Aqsa. It is to the great detriment of true justice in our society, and it fails the victims of these crimes, which find religious and cultural sanction. It is this characteristic – religious or cultural sanction – that makes us plead silence, and Papp rightly makes the association with the fear of being perceived as colonialist should we dare to criticize the harmful practices of minorities.

This fear is something that has deep roots in Canadian culture, perpetuated through academic institutions, the media, even the peace movement. It has long been fashionable in the halls of western arts faculties to view all the world through the lens of post-colonialism. In classrooms across the country students of political science, anthropology, literature and other disciplines learn to see the developing world as unflinchingly hostile to foreign interference, as the wounds of conquest by imperial powers continue to heal. Through this lens, universal values do not exist. Young Canadians are taught to challenge their own western perceptions and to be culturally sensitive. Buzzwords like “ethnocentrism” abound, and all kinds of activities take on the metaphor of colonialism, whether international development projects or scientific research.

There is nothing wrong with seeking intercultural competence, except when our desire to be tolerant erodes our instincts that tell us when something is simply wrong. In romanticizing societies outside our own, we can more easily pretend that poverty, inequity and a denial of basic human rights are quaint tribal characteristics that make the world a more colourful place, as opposed to blatant human rights abuses. Anthropologists, for instance, have made the case that abusive practices against women such as female genital mutilation or widow burning (‘sati’) are cultural rituals that have their rightful, “contextually appropriate” place in those societies

In reflecting on differences between our culture and others, we often drown out the voices from those cultures that tell us, inconveniently, ‘I want the very same things as you do’. This was Aqsa’s voice – she had wanted freedom of mobility, of dress, of work. By not speaking out against her murder, and more importantly, against the reason for her murder, we are hearing only the voices of those who – like her murderers – tell us to mind our business, that culture is inviolable, sacred and relative.

As a Canadian activist who has worked to defend the rights of Afghan women over the past 14 years, I’ve heard those words, “mind your own business”, more times than I can count. But a pattern in who speaks them was rapidly apparent: it was never Afghan women who said this to me – it was usually Canadians. Very often it was white men, like the man who told me during a workshop about Canada in Afghanistan last year at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre in downtown Vancouver: “it’s none of our business how they choose to treat their women.” He was referring to the Taliban and why Canada should “stay out” of Afghanistan. It’s a notion prevalent in the anti-war movement, which has come to stand for pacifism at any cost, and which has forgotten that there once was a time when people who called themselves peace activists actually stood against totalitarianism, the denial of human rights anywhere in the world, and the terrorism of innocents by regimes bent on seeing the spread of fascism.

Today, culture trumps the idea of universal rights. But not in the minds of many of the women we as Canadians have belittled by listening too seriously to the claim that abuses and misogyny in other cultures are somehow acceptable. In April 2009, an Afghan woman wrote an editorial in the Globe & Mail that said:

When I came to Canada, I found freedom, and perhaps more importantly, hope. I was free to pursue an education, free to plan and dream. I adjusted to my new home. But I still have not adjusted to the support I have found among Canadians for the Taliban state of mind. It made me sad to see that in a free and modern society, there remain those who excuse an ideology based on the hatred of women, by citing multiculturalism. And they are not Afghans, or even immigrants, but those born in Canada who somehow think that the abuse of women and a fundamentalist view of the world, are acceptable among Afghans, and so no intervention is required. But remember that among Afghans, women can also be found. Have you remembered to ask whether the Taliban represent their culture?

She wrote under a pseudonym, for her own protection from attacks from her ethnic community. She lives not in Kandahar or Tehran, but in a suburb of Vancouver, in western Canada.

We can duly recognize the legacy of colonialism without it disabling any kind of intervention to protect the basic human rights we are all entitled to, wherever we come from. We can similarly celebrate the multitude of cultures in the world while acknowledging that they are all united by the genetic coding all humans have to reject pain and suffering, and to mourn the pain and suffering of others – even when we deny that we do.

We must do a better job of listening to that human instinct within us that makes our stomachs churn when we pick up a newspaper article and read of how a young woman gave her last breaths of air, blood dripping down her nose, when police found her on her bed after her brother pushed down on her neck, making sure she would die within a few hours of her suffering. Rather than push aside the disgust we feel in reaction and veil it with some thinly disguised cultural relativism, or excuse it away as just another case of “ordinary” domestic violence, we must question, criticize and speak out against the tribal, cultural or religious sanction of any crime.

Aqsa’s family buried her in unmarked grave, refusing donations for a headstone. Let the end of her life, at least, be marked by the beginnings of a turning point in Canadian culture, where we shed our reluctance to offend cultural communities that perpetuate the hatred and subjugation of women and girls. If speaking the truth is offensive, so let us offend.

About the Author

Lauryn Oates is a Canadian human rights activist, gender and education specialist. She is currently Projects Director for Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, and a doctoral student in literacy education at the University of British Columbia.

25 Responses to “If speaking the truth is offensive, let us offend”

As a product of Canadian multi-culturalism I want to respect other people’s societies and beliefs and struggle with the “if you want to come to Canada you must adapt Canadian ways” school of thought. I don’t want to insist all ties to a home country are severed, nor do I want to sound like some old white guy entrenched in his privilege. At the same time turning away an immigrant appealing to authorities for help is a betrayal of our culture.

Luckily for us all, Aqsa Parvez’s murderers have been found guilty, and are now serving life sentences.

Of course, nothing you’ve written will have much effect on any isms, liberalism or extreme forms of multiculturalism. Nor should it. You’re not criticizing theories, you’re grinding an axe against people you don’t like.

It does, however, act as a potent critique of a certain kind of mindset. Let’s call it “conservative stabilitarianism”. Some people are simply not very interested in politics, not very interested in public morals, etc.; they are characteristically afraid of large groups (activists! yuck!), interested in short-term social stability, and happy to embrace diversity of fundamental norms over and above the tolerance that is advocated by libertarians and liberals. Most of these stabilitarians claim to be centrists or moderates. There is something wrong with them.

What do you mean by “nothing you’ve written will have much effect on any isms, liberalism or extreme forms of multiculturalism”? If you mean that recognizing these issues will not change the face of extreme multiculturalism, then you are, of course, right: if it recognized universal human rights, then it wouldn’t be extreme multiculturalism any more, would it?

But if you mean that it will not change the views held by individuals who may now be considered extreme multiculturalists, then you are very wrong. Most people I know were educated exactly into this mindset: be tolerant no matter what, accept different cultures and all their practices, don’t judge what you don’t (and can’t) understand, moral norms are culturally constructed and completely relative, etc. Some of us then started reading sites like Butterflies & Wheels, Dawkins, Pinker, etc. Consider our minds changed.

As I see it, the danger is leaping from correctly recognizing that (say) FGM is horrendous to supporting anything supposedly against it. I vehemently disapprove of invading a country and smashing what passes for a government in general, so the stakes have to be pretty high for this to be the right choice. Are (say) women better off in Afghanistan now? I don’t know, and I don’t even know how one can easily make the ordering necessary to answer that question.

You’re not criticizing theories, you’re grinding an axe against people you don’t like.

That’s bullshit.

It is a theory in certain cultures that a woman does not have the value of a man. It’s probably not a coincidence that most of these cultures come from regions that just happen to be Islamic theocracies.

It is not axe grinding to point this out.

It is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that this sort of institutionalized misogyny does not have cultural and religious roots.

Tea, assuming I understand you correctly, I meant the former. I worry about the extreme form of multiculturalist, but only because they have nothing to do with actual multiculturalism or liberalism, involving universal human rights etc. They are, rather, conservatives in a hollow psychological sense; the kind of people who occupy the perceived middle ground without ever knowing much about the issues.

Steve, I think that’s a project worth pursuing. But if we want to hear that argument, we will have to wait for a different article than this one.

Well, I guess that’s your experience. Where I come from, extreme multiculturalists are just that: people who take their tolerance and accepting of different personal views and cultural habits and traditions much too far.

That is my experience with the kinds of personalities involved, true. But crucially, it’s not just a question of experience, it’s a question of theory. You won’t find many canonical liberal theorists telling you that people get to secede from the norms of state of law, and be applauded for doing so.

But there are plenty of serious-minded people who advocate for something like that, or worse. You will find State’s Rights advocates who press for autonomy in just this way, and who expect applause. Pick your favorite issue of religious injustice, we’ll find it in the headlines — sects denying blood transfusions for children, for example, because evidently we’re supposed to respect their silly and cruel beliefs over and above the value of human life. The only difference is that the so-called multiculturalists abuse the language of tolerance in such a way that we slide further towards illiberalism, while the older form of conservatism reviled the language of tolerance in order to slide into the aformentioned bog.

I have found that arguing BN’s ridiculous points is like punching sand. Useless. He will just return with more bafflegab and continue to evade the important points being made. That being said, it’s interesting how he always seems to have “intellectual” problems with articles by individuals promoting universal human rights.

I wonder how much of the problem is really liberal, post-colonialist multiculturalism, and how much unacknowledge survival in Canadian culture of the old British tradition of “native rule”? In that regard, challenging the misogynistic traditions of Afghanistan and other cultures would mean more real respect for the people of these countries, respect for them as responsible adults able to face their issues and change.

But it also means that Westerners shouldn’t forget the challenges their own culture still faces. Something like honor killings is not unknown in our countries, it simply has other names. The man who kills his wife or girlfriend, sometimes also her children, because he thinks she cuckolded him is alas a too frequent feature in the news. And it doesn’t help if we think it’s “only” psychological, individual problems. This way, nothing will ever change.

My goodness, vildechaye, do you think I’ve evaded an important point? By all means, share it, so that I can nod along. Here’s an important point: sharia law is terrible. Here’s another: the murderers are in jail. Let ’em rot.

Though you’ll have to do a sight better than the last time, when I reduced you to a spiteful concession and merely verbal disagreements, by your own reckoning. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/not-to-be-missed/ One wonders if you reserve this venom for everyone with who you claim to agree with on all substantial issues.

Just a few clarifications before i leave this discussion, as I find the thought of actually arguing with BN about as interesting as watching a clock.

1-“when i reduced you to a spiteful concession” — in your own mind, no doubt. In reality, I didn’t “concede” anything. You would see it that way, of course.

2-I don’t agree with you “on all substantial issues.” That’s your conceit. Most of the time I barely understand you. I do note, however, that whenever the subject of universal human rights comes up, you have something negative to say about it. That’s all I wanted to say, and all I’m going to say. Argue with yourself.

I see I never answered Ben’s question from that older thread about when I would call [something] an occupation. It’s fuzzy, but it would depend partly on the reasons and/or intentions. The German occupation of Paris in 1940 was different from the Allied occupation of Paris in 1944. “Occupation” is the accepted historical term for both (I think), but if I were choosing I would probably pick different words. The Allied occupation of Berlin, on the other hand, was a real occupation. So…it depends on how entrenched the opposing forces are, whether there is someone else to hand over to, what the long-term goals are, etc.

Oph, I understand why we might want to talk about intentions and so on. And you’re right to insist on it, in this sense: some kinds of intentions can’t be ignored. It would be utterly stupid for us to refrain from saying, “X intends to invade Y”, when X’s army is amassing on the border of Y, but hasn’t yet crossed into the territory. These are kinds of intentions that we attribute to X because we see the concrete things they’re doing, and that’s perfectly right.

But most of the time, a government’s professed long-term intentions are totally at odds with / subordinate to their actual intentions. And you can’t figure what they’re up to until all the historical records are out, 50 years later. These kinds of intentions, the kind for which there’s no evidence, forces us to be stuck with terms like “invasion” and “occupation” that can only be used historically or pejoratively, and not Here And Now. And if you try to use that kind of language anyway, you get called a conspiracy theorist or worse — often, rightly. It’s a perfect epistemic trap.

So that’s why I set the bar low. But I don’t set it too low, which is why I think your formulation works pretty well to make my point. NATO’s presence in Afghanistan qualifies as an occupation under both of your senses, but especially in the occupation of Berlin sense, because the Taliban and both entrenched and resilient in the South.

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by alicia h., Matthew Campbell. Matthew Campbell said: If speaking the truth is offensive, let us offend http://is.gd/dyLCz <- A must read for my fellow Canucks out there […]

Surely some things are just plain wrong and require no analysis or apologies based upon cultural norms and practices. Tearing the legs off live kittens is wrong – just plain wrong. No ifs and or buts! Causing unnecessary pain to sentient beings is wrong. Strangling your daughter because she has decided to stop wearing certain kinds of attire is wrong. Cultural relativism and multiculturalism be damned!

[…] of a schism that continues to enfeeble the Left (Comrade Lauryn Oates considers examples here and here) more than three decades on: Anti-Orientalist Meets Western Feminist. The post recounts a critical […]

RE: It does, however, act as a potent critique of a certain kind of mindset. Let’s call it “conservative stabilitarianism”. Some people are simply not very interested in politics, not very interested in public morals, etc.; they are characteristically afraid of large groups (activists! yuck!), interested in short-term social stability, and happy to embrace diversity of fundamental norms over and above the tolerance that is advocated by libertarians and liberals. Most of these stabilitarians claim to be centrists or moderates. There is something wrong with them.

Once again, BN manages to turn black into white, night into day, and smart into stupid. Lauryn Oates clearly is not discussing “stabilitarians” (dumb word), but about activists, specifically supposed “progressive” activists, the “get Canada out of Afghanistan” who justify their stance with the kind of cultural relativism she describes. They aren’t conservative, centrists or moderates.

Vildechaye, I think I know the sort of activist you mean. They see the world divided into oppressor vs oppressed. The West is the oppressor, everyone else is the oppressed. So, if you critique anything non-Western, by their reckoning, you are aiding and abetting oppression. This is something I encounter at my “Western arts faculty” ALL THE TIME, and it gets vicious. It doesn’t help that the atmosphere is polluted by the sort of thuggery as expressed by the BNP, Ann Coulter, etc.

I found the original article to be passionate and insightful. The horror of honor killings must be denounced by the larger community. I agree that we have similar crimes in western culture–such as when a man kills his wife for some perceived transgression. We must condemn such actions in all circumstances.